The property is a detached
bungalow, with its front elevation facing south-west. It has a very large existing side extension which first
projects south-east from the side wall of the original bungalow, then turns north-east towards the rear garden,
and then turns south-east again. For a drawing of this property on which the original building is clearly marked
please refer to Appendix A of the Council’s Appeal Statement.

The application was for a
single storey rear extension, which would not only have covered the full width of the north-east rear wall of
the original bungalow, but would have exceeded the width of the latter by projecting to the south-east side of
the rear elevation. This projecting part of the proposed extension would have been directly attached to both a
rear wall and a side wall of the existing extension.

The first key issue was
whether the proposed extension would be contrary to Class A, part A.1(h), which states that “Development is not
permitted by Class A if … the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse would extend beyond a wall forming a side
elevation of the original dwellinghouse, and would— … (iii) have a width greater than half the width of the
original dwellinghouse”

The second key issue was
whether Class A, part A.1(e), which states that “development is not permitted by Class A if … the enlarged part
of the dwellinghouse would … extend beyond the rear wall of the original dwellinghouse by more than … 3 metres”,
restricts the width of the extension to the width of the original rear wall.

In their Appeal Statement,
the Council made several points, including that the proposed extension would not “extend beyond a wall forming a
side elevation of the original dwellinghouse, as required by point (h) of the GPDO”, and that “part of the
extension would extend beyond a rear wall that is not part of the original dwellinghouse”.

The Inspector stated the
following:

“Limitation A.1(e) applies
where the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse would have a single storey and (i) extend beyond the rear wall of
the original dwellinghouse by more than 4 metres in the case of a detached dwellinghouse, or (ii) exceed 4
metres in height. As the proposed extension would extend beyond the rear wall by 3.8 metres and would not exceed
4 metres in height it would not fall within limitation A.1(e).

Limitation A.1(h) applies
where the enlarged part of the dwellinghouse would extend beyond a wall forming a side elevation of the original
dwellinghouse, and would (i) exceed 4 metres in height, or (ii) have more than one storey, or (iii) have a width
greater than half the width of the original dwellinghouse. This extension does not extend beyond a wall forming
a side elevation of the original dwellinghouse. Limitation (h) does not, therefore, apply.

The extension would be
attached to a side elevation of the extended dwellinghouse, but limitation A.1(h) is clearly worded and is not
applicable where the development extends only beyond a non-original sidewall. There is no requirement in
A.1(h) that a side extensionmust
be built off an original side wall in order to be permitted development. Similarly, limitation A.1(e) only
applies to extensions which extend beyond the rear wall of the original dwellinghouse. The structure of Class A
is that enlargement, improvement or other alteration of a dwellinghouse is not permitted if it is excluded by
any of the limitations in Class A.1. This extension is not explicitly excluded by any of the limitations in
Class A.1. It would therefore be permitted development”.

Main
Conclusions:

·Where the original rear
elevation of a property is flat, Class A, part A.1(e) does not in itself restrict the width of the
extension to the width of the original rear wall.[Relevant to: A.1(e), A.1(f)].

Links to the “Appeal
Decision Notice” and other associated documents (e.g. drawings, etc):